>>283412820
while it can always be argued that manipulating children can be useful for whatever goal you want to achieve, it cannot be said that you are not manipulating people and violating their consent. War itself is a violation of consent.
I would argue that whatever tactical advantage child soldiers bring to a conflict is overshadowed by the damage to the narrative, and the loss of the moral high ground. Morals might be subjective, but a good story is valuable to any war effort, having the moral high ground helps with recruitment.
You know what’s better than a bunch of small tactical advantages on the battlefield? An army that is twice the size because it inspires loyalty and love, and all those stupid evil things you did for small tactical advantages actually leaves you with a smaller army in a worse position over time.
You discussion of war is as juvenile as your ethics, but I’m willing to entertain either.
>>283412994
Support for specific wars is irrelevant. You’re basically justifying manipulation and the violation of consent for subjective war goals, which is a bad precedent, and actually weakens a nation long term. Lies and tricks are great in the short term, but they sow seeds of distrust in the long term and diminish a nation in the eyes of its peers. In the same way, tricking people into fighting so that the rich can get richer is not actually in the best interest of the United States, nor is manipulating children to die for you. Everything thinks their goals are justified, and so everyone sacrifices everyone else for themselves, and empires fall. I’m a moral relativist and nihilist, and I think using child soldiers is bad actually in a purely cost-benefit material analysis. A good story is worth a billion bullets. “We sacrifice children” is not a good story. Your understanding of warfare is as naive as your philosophy, seeking tactical gains at the expense of strategic sense.
